ANYINAM vs. MENSAH [1989]DLHC536

Date	1989-01-23
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1989]DLHC536

OMARI-SASU J.

OPOKU-BOATENG FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

R. AGODZO FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1989]DLHC536
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >ANYINAM<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>MENSAH <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1989-90] 2 GLR 96<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
23 JANUARY
1989<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

OPOKU-BOATENG FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

OMARI-SASU J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OMARI-SASU J.<o:p></o:p>From the
amended indorsement on the plaintiff’s writ of summons, the plaintiff has among
other relief’s prayed for: “(a) An order revoking the letters of administration
granted to the defendant to administer the estate of Kwabena Ofosu alias
Kwabena Kufour (deceased).”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I should
like to observe from the onset that no citation was filed by the plaintiff
either before or at the time he commenced the present action calling on the
defendant to bring his letters of administration to the registry of this
honourable court and show cause why the letters of administration should not be
revoked.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>After the
close of pleadings and summons for directions had been taken, formal hearing of
the case commenced after which the plaintiff closed his case. It was at this
stage that learned counsel for the defendant raised a preliminary legal
objection to the trial. The substance of the said objection is that in an
action in which a plaintiff seeks, inter alia, the revocation of letters of
administration granted to the defendant, the plaintiff is bound to file a
citation before or at the time of filing the writ and the citation must call
upon the defendant to deposit his letters of administration with the registry
of the court and show cause why his grant of letters should not be revoked.
When the plaintiff was called to reply to the legal objection raised on behalf
of the defendant he could not seriously resist the objection.<o:p></o:p>For a
resolution of this problem one must look at section 67 of the Administration of
Estates Act, 1961 (Act 63) which provides as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“67.
Where administration has been granted in respect of any estate of a deceased
person, no person shall have power to bring any action or otherwise act as
executor of the deceased person in respect of the estate comprised in or
affected by the grant until the grant has been recalled or revoked.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>(The
emphasis is mine.) Halsbury’s Laws of England (3rd ed.), Vol. 16, para. 518 at
257, gives a clear elucidation of the procedure applicable and states:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">&nbsp;“Manner of obtaining revocation”. Revocation
may be obtained either voluntarily or by compulsory proceedings. In the former
case evidence is filed setting out the circumstances, and the order may be made
on motion or by a registrar. In the latter case a writ is issued, and a
citation is served upon the grantee [citee] by the citor requiring him
[grantee-citee] to bring the grant into the principal registry, and show cause
why it should not be revoked. The citation must either precede or be
simultaneous with the writ, and the plaintiff should allege in the endorsement
of his claim on the writ and in his statement of claim, as the ground for
revoking the grant, the invalidity of the will or the defendant’s want of
interest... A revoked grant must be produced and delivered at the registrar at
the time of its revocation, so that it may be cancelled in the registry.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>A close
examination of section 67 of Act 63 shows that before an aggrieved plaintiff
commences an action aimed at the revocation of letters of administration
already granted he must as a first step file a citation calling upon the citee
to produce his letters of administration at the registry of the court and the
citee must show cause why his grant of letters should not be revoked. Within
the citation, it is the duty of the plaintiff-citor to give the reason for his
filing the citation.<o:p></o:p>